Howard v. Schrubbe

ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 72); STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (DKT. NO. 68); ORDERING THAT
PLAINTIFF MAY FILE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AS DESCRIBED IN
THIS ORDER BY SEPTEMBER 1, 2017; ORDERING THAT DEFENDANTS MAY
FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY MATERIALS BY SEPTEMBER 11, 2017;
AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DEADLINE
TO FILE REPLY MATERIALS (DKT. NO. 72)

HON.
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On
March 1, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. No. 55. The plaintiff filed a response on May
23, 2017, dkt. no. 66, and he filed a supplemental
declaration on May 30, 2017, dkt. no. 71. The defendants have
filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response to
their motion for summary judgment, and to stay the
defendants' deadline to file reply materials. Dkt. No.
72.

I.
THE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE

The
plaintiff's May 23, 2017 response to the defendants'
motion for summary judgment consists of a brief, objections
to the defendants' proposed findings of fact, proposed
findings of fact, a declaration, and about 850 pages of
exhibits.[1] Dkt. Nos. 66-69. On May 30, 2017, the
plaintiff filed a letter regarding modifications to his
medical record exhibits, dkt. no. 70, along with a
supplemental declaration in support of his motion for summary
judgment, dkt. no. 71. The plaintiff's letter states in
relevant part:

On 5.18, I sent several hundred pages to the library to be
e-filed to the Court and on 5.23 I received copies of the
originals I had placed in the institution mailbox. When I
spoke to the librarian on 5.26 he informed me that WCI
Litigation Coordinator Pusich had taken the original
documents because I had altered some of the medical records
that I had submitted to the Court. While I assumed that any
modifications I made to my exhibits were obvious and would
not be construed as original medical documents I am
submitting a supplemental declaration to clarify matters.

Dkt. No. 70. The plaintiff's supplemental declaration
explains the alterations he made to his medical record
exhibits. Dkt. No. 71.

II.
THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

On June
2, 2017, the defendants filed their motion to strike. Dkt.
No. 72. The defendants stated two grounds in support of their
motion. First, they stated that the plaintiff's summary
judgment response contains 200 additional proposed findings
of fact, in violation of Civil Local Rule 56(b)(2)(B)(ii),
which sets a limit of 100 proposed facts for non-movants.
Dkt. No. 72 at 2. Second, the defendants stated:

4. Plaintiff submitted a supplemental declaration on May 30.
In that, Plaintiff admits that he “created” over
70 pages of exhibits for his declaration by taking copies of
DOC records and altering them by “adding relevant
information from other sources.” Specifically,
Plaintiff admits that he submitted the following DOC medical
records with additional information added by the Plaintiff
via typewriter:

• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of Exhibit 2009

• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of Exhibit 2010

• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of Exhibit 2011

• He admits that he altered pages 2-13 of ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.